Re: ReadyForQuery()

"Simon Riggs" <simon(at)2ndquadrant(dot)com> writes:
> Wouldn't it be better to issue ReadyForQuery() and then issue the stat
> stuff in the gap between processing?

To me, "ready for query" means "ready for query", not "I think I might
be ready soon". Otherwise you could argue for trying to move the
message emission much further upstream than that. Another problem is
that on a lot of kernels, control swaps to the client process the
instant we issue the send(), and if the client is well-coded control
will swap back when it send()s us the next query. If we rearrange
things as you suggest then the state display will become quite
misleading: it will claim we are still busy when actually the client
has the result, and it will switch to "idle" *after* we've received
a new command.

regards, tom lane